Why does the scope platform sound better than VST? or wrong

[Marco]

[garyb]

vsts can sound just as good as Scope plugins, just not in realtime and not without a huge cpu hit.
other than that, it's algorythms.

[Marco]

can you explain a little bit more?

[fra77x]

God created scope. Vst's are made by humans...

[fra77x]

Scope was created by a crazy anarchocommunist who wanted to provide studio quality tools to the masses.
(and destroy the music industry in the proccess). He almost died in the procedure.
Vsts are made by common people.

or

Scope is an alien communication system. "Good quality" is the 1024 bit and 1000000000000 internal sample rate that it uses.
Vsts are still on 64 bit.

or

Scope contains a strange virus that makes you believe that it has better quality. Biomechanics is the reason.

or

When a sound tool is builded in an company hosted inside a true space telescope then it's a nessecity to sound better.
It is aiming to the stars and to eternity. Most vst developers just watched television.

[garyb]

cpus can only do one job at a time. even a very powerful cpu will get bogged down by processing that uses algorythms that really approximate real hardware, since a cpu has hundreds of threads to keep track of. to make them usable in something approaching realtime, the processes must be simplified because even the best multicore processor can only handle a few threads at any one time. dsps are dedicated processors. since they only have to do one specific function, that function can be maxed out(very simplified explanation). the dsps don't have to keep track of screen redraws or antivirus or lan, usb or other ports, the dsps running a synth or compresor or... don't have to manage bus traffic or ram or...

also, the original Scope programmers were audio programming geniuses whose work has made several other major manaufacturer's dsp product function...

[fra77x]

Sorry GaryB but that arguement has a hole. Give me good sound and give it to me 10 minutes after, i don't care. Sound is computed and fills buffers. These buffers can get filled in different moments, what matters is the actual continuity. The arguement says that they compromise sound quality so to deliver fast the audio but that doesn't explains why scope does it fast and good at the same time.
The engineer(s) are the most important factor. The people who actually did the job. It's not difficult to compute a sine wave. Difficult is to create studio grade equipment.


edit: sorry now i read your last sentence

[garyb]

yes, of course, but that's no hole in the argument. if it takes 10 minutes to render, yes, it's still good sound, but it sucks to wait 10 minutes to hear what happens when you turn a knob.

but you are correct. a great engineer gets good sound with almost anything. it's just that when that good sound is compared with better and worse quality gear, the better quality gear has a higher upside. the better gear makes it easier to get a good sound.

[fra77x]

I agree with that "comparing means value" logic. Aesthetics are relativistic.

yes my statement was an oversimplification and an exaggeration. It would apply to why asio drivers (~5ms) has the same sound with wave drivers (~50-200ms). (because it's the same algo but it contradicts with the "need for speed" part of the arguement). Of course things to happen fast is a very important factor. And yes dedicated cpus offer exactly that difference. They are free just to compute audio.

[garyb]

no, it doesn't contradict. wave drivers are more cpu intensive. they need more time. the driver latency has nothing to do with the plugin's latency, not directly anyway. the driver needs the rime it needs and the plugin needs the time it needs. the problem is never one plugin these days, unless it's extremely poorly written. cpus are very fast. the problem happens with 20 tracks, each with processing and a couple of romplers. a single vst plugin can be made that will challenge all but the best custom hardware for sound quality, but you'll never run 20 of them in a mix at 5ms, or even 50ms....and let's not even talk about the algorythm that must combine all 20 channels plus processing. this is not a problem for dsps.

at one time, which is a time in my memory, all computer audio was offline. realtime was a hardware only reality. 5ms is still not even close to realtime(although it's quite usable).

[hubird]

I never had the opportunity to A-B compare a mix when outputted to two audio cards, one DSP Scope and one 'ASIO'.
You need two ASIO clients for that anyway, but it would be nice to really compare them, on the fly so to speak.

The difference between Scope out and computer Audio Out doesn't need an A-B compare, it's clear enough.
The brilliance which 'opens' when switching to Scope is fantastic (ADAM monitoring), and this is why I trust my system.

I use UAD2 plugs in Cubase to get the tracks in basic shape before they go out to Scope for finishing, special things, aux fx and master fx.
But then, UAD is also DSP

In fact it's a non-topic: DSP or native, like said already by former posters.
Almost every action during the mixing proces has a bigger influence on the endresult compared to the possible audio difference between DSP and native.
A single action like a fat reverb on the snare drum is a hurricane compared to the hardly noticable breeze of DSP above native or reverse.

I don't know if there are big studios working only native.
I don't think so, but this could mean other reasons, like commercial competition or market traditions (i.e. Pro Tools, or even Scope).
I just know that Autotune was explicitely VST software and got to get to get to be the most (ab)used plugin in the charts
It wasn't even meant for that
Do your thing, that's the message I guess.

[fra77x]

"no, it doesn't contradict. wave drivers are more cpu intensive. " \
What do you mean? cpu intensive for what? Communicating with the sound hardware? Setting on off interrupts? Of course fast latencies put more drain on the cpu because it must provide (fill the buffers) in less time.

I know that you can build a "hardware grade" vst plugin, and that it costs alot in cpu cycles because i have one here. But it's not that good at least that version because i haven't spend a lot of time with it. It's just a vst plugin. It can easily compute 16 voices but i prefer less voices with better sound. Yes it consumes a lot of cycles but i can't understand why other experienced programmers can't provide products that will make them money. They are aiming to different target groups? To the large "you can be a musician group"? Because of the cracked versions propably. Why put so much effort in something that can easily get copied? I think that is one of the main reasons.

Of course we are comparing here actual solutions and not hypothetic ones.

edit: there are studios full of equipment that use several times vsts. That's totally different than complete vst production.

Starting with good sources, recording reliable in proven equipment by people that know the job is totally different than the common guy that reads the "get a studio" advertisment and just needs years to actually learn how to record.

Look guys, i'm not really sure, scope is my solution and i don't really recomend it to other people which mainly use more maintream solutions. I'm just happy that i have the best sound...

[dante]

Look guys, i'm not really sure, scope is my solution and i don't really recomend it to other people which mainly use more maintream solutions. I'm just happy that i have the best sound...

Yeah thats the Jimmy Solaris outlook - why convince others about the sound of Scope when you can be the best on the block by not letting on

[garyb]

uhhh...because user recs are the main advertising available to the company that you don't want out of business...

[jksuperstar]

+1

As an engineer I'll say this: Using DSPs offer a set of tools that have been developed over decades, long before creamware was even founded. Those tools (and the capability of the hardware) doesn't exist on a Native platform. Knowing and using the tools also takes a very specific set of knowledge and understanding...which is way beyond just using a calculator. And so the quality of code is a bit different.

You can then take the same people from the DSP world, and put them on VST programming (oh, wait, look at Nord/Creamware/Waldorf engineers going to Native Instruments)...but somehow they can't reproduce the same quality sounds! It is just recently that they can come close to the old hardware designs...after a decade of development!

I for one am VERY happy to see the return of analog hardware. I think soon, we will also see a return of digital hardware...in a completely new way. (Take a look at Dave Smith's latest Prophet12...he chose to use DSPs in there to generate oscillators and wavetables!)

[krizrox]

I don't mean to upset anyone's sensibilities but I stopped using Scope as my main mixing platform years ago. It didn't make sense anymore. I use Scope/A16 (couldn't like without it) but the Scope card, in conjunction with the 2448 channel mixer is only used to provide a headphone feed to the studio now. I load up enough channels to support a headphone feed to the clients and then send all audio via ASIO to my recording app (Samplitude). I do all the actual mixing and editing and mastering within Samplitude using VSTs or whatever bundled FX are included with Sampltude ProX. At that point, Scope becomes nothing more than a nice soundcard.

I was worried about this change for a while cuz I assumed VST couldn't compare to Scope's plug-ins but that's simply not the case. If there is a slight sonic advantage in Scope's favor it's far outweighed by the simplicity of running VST's as channel inserts and using Samplitude's mixer and editing features to do the mixing/editing work. Using Scope, you have to let the entire arrangement play through from start to finish in order to render or create the final stereo master. If you have a ten or twenty minute project that's ten or twenty minutes you have to sit there and wait. In Samplitude I just do a bounce and the entire arrangement is rendered as a WAV file in a few seconds. VST effects can be automated (easily) and... well... the list goes on and on in favor of VST plug-ins vs Scope plug-ins. If you're using Scope in XTC mode some of this might be a moot point but I never got great results using it like that. Scope might have some sonic advantages with the synth devices but I'm not a synth guy and no one in 15 years ever asked me to provide a virtual synth for a recording project. The local weekend warrior rock bands wouldn't know or care about such stuff. I can run a 24-32 track project with VST's on almost every channel and master bus mastering plug-ins and not even hit 50% CPU usage. I run a meager dual-core system still on Windows XP 32 bit.

Having said all that I love Scope. It sounds great. It's affordable. I look forward to the time I can get an Xite box and a new Ferrofish converter.

[fra77x]

Because i'm an electronic musician and i regard rock as a museum style, i do exactly the opposite. I use anything vst for headphone feed, do all my work in scope...

[djmicron]

we made some comparisons between vst native vs protools vs scope vs uad.

vst versus protools = not much difference in sound, vst versus uad = much difference(uad better), vst versus scope = much difference(scope better).

The sharcs are better for sound processing algorithms, also spl is unable to make plugins to sound the same on native vs uad and customers noticed it.

From my experience, if i mix an entire session all on native plugins, it seems ok, but if i start mixing the same into scope, then there is a big improvement, better sound separation on multiple streams, crystal clear equalization, compression on scope is another planet and of course synthesizers have not competitors.

To get the same i have to use some very expensive outboard.

[garyb]

it depends on what you do, but vsts really are only more convienient. a good engineer will get good results in any case. personally, i think that the mix engines in native sequencers truly suck and i can't think of anything lousier to do than to render audio, but to each his own.

[Marco]

Gary is right, the vst instruments and Sequenzer mixing is more for homerecorders.